Page:Prerogatives of the Crown.djvu/312

 292 Hxtenls. [Ch. XII. Pt. L Sec. V.' subject shall have obtained such judgment, the King shall have' connnenced his suit, or instituted process for the recovery of his debt. This will be an abridgment of the prerogative, (for under 25 Edw. 3. it has been shewn, that the King might have prevented the subject's execution, although the King's suit was not commenced before the subject had obtained judgment,) and will satisfy the words of the statute, and also conform to all the authorities prior to Uppom v. Sumner. The words of the sta- tute cannot possibly be taken in their literal sense ; for then, if the subject's judgment were first he would have precedence, al- though his execution were last, which is not the case, even between subject and subject. That sense, therefore, must pre- vail, which the words will best admit of, upon a reference to the law as it stood before the act. The substance of the en- actment is this, that the King's suit and process (which is intended of mesne process), and the King's execution, are to be preferred to that of the subject, which is so far the same as at common law ; but he is only to have first execution, i, e, a right to prevent the subject from issuing execution until the King's debt be satisfied in the case there provided for. But the statute was never intended to be applied to concurrent exe- cutions.'* It may be observed upon this most important question, that this mode of construing the statute seems reasonable, and it does not appear that any positive objection to this explanation of it has been offered. The leaning and construction should, it seems, be rather in favor of the Crown, in the caSe of an en- actment apparently abridging its prerogatives ; and in order to discover the scope and meaning of a statute, especially if it be ambiguous, it is perfectly consistent with legal principles to regard the common law as it existed at the period when the act was passed (a). And it appears on the whole highly pro- bable that the question, if it arose again, would be finally set- tled, in conformity with the very recent decision in the Exche- quer, in favor of the Crown [b). If the facts are returned specially by the jury, which appears to be the usual and most advisable course, they must be stated (rt) See Bac. Abr. Statute, 1. 4. See however Mr. West's observations, C^*) Ante, 289. West oa Extents, 107 to 112. and